mr.g-c

Remember my yesterdays claim? Now guess how fcking long i searched for the proof... Jesus Christ xD http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?130175-Translator-required/page2&p=2092230#post2092230 Im Quoting the translator "myshaak":

Yeahh it looks like that guy has something up his ass ^^

And it is advanced over what we have currently in ArmA2.... :-) So at least "some" improvement in this sector... What advantages does TOHs damage model have else over ArmA2 choppers?

Yeahh and while you say it... in the Gamestar E3 Video you can see they shot-away the tail-rotor of that little-bird. So thats some sort of partial damage system already... hmmm....

Trained as cannon-fodder ;-) *Just Joking* @RIE: Nice Setup... Totally affordable by 2013, or even better stuff.

The we should report his posts and speak with the lead-mod to let him getting banned... The way he lied and made us "hot" was under every level i could imagine.

Roger that :-) In any case, here is the ticket in the CIS: https://dev-heaven.net/issues/30718

Or Booster is a BIS Dev... *cough* Explains the non-reaction so far. The way he spread the informations and if they are not true, he should have been instant banned.

Hello Vespa... Please look into that Video: The distance the player is achieving in less than 3 minutes looks a bit extreme. 3-5 Minutes more and he is on the coast. I beg you to please do the speeds like in RL. Possibly like this: Walking ~4-5km/h, Jogging 8-11km/h, sprinting 15-25km/h - for "standing" stance. (all depending on carried weight, steepness of surface and actual fatigue-factor). Will it be possible to change that via configs without braking the look of the animations? So even if you leave it that way, realism mods could change it? Will it be possible to disable/alter the stock fatigue system, so realism mods could overwrite it? I remember this was a problem so far in ArmA1 and ArmA2 if mods like ACE implemented their own system.

So all Booster told us was a lie, right?

Not really... he was not at all talking about walking speeds. Only about a fatigue system. And at exactly 7:05 it looks really like he was walking at 20km/h+ Please find me the YT Video with Ivan Buchta. If its not in there, then its in a blog or in a late post by smoothie (or however that Dev is called)

No really, im dead serious f*ck... I knew the first people not believing me would post up... Now i must find that thing to prove i'm right... Arghhh... Another hour wasted... Do you have the link with the Interview with Ivan Buchta lately by a czech game magazine? I think it was in there. It was a video on YT.

I made a ticket about to vote for it here: https://dev-heaven.net/issues/30718 However there was a statement lately, either in an interview with Ivan Buchta or in a Dev-Blog were BIS was stating that they were "Upscaling jogging speeds to 22km/h and other stances upscaled to other speeds because the player demands that and would complain that the game would be to slow if it were realistic". Now if you know me, i totally disagree with that. How about just design missions then different. There are Vehicles and so on. If i remember back to OFP, where soldiers were slower (and realistic) it was fun to look and search around for a vehicle everytime when you were stranded somewhere. Sure it added to the difficulty so you can't run from one side of the island to another in a few minutes, but it was better that way.

Now, we shouldn't let this topic getting more and more OT only because i made a disappointed statement towards BIS, but just let me say to you that you probably don't understand that because you are rather new i assume (based on your join date). The term "Limitations" or "Engine Limitations" connected with BIS' Engine and feature-requests gives me and many other slight hiccups. In the past the majority even of "little" feature requests were mostly answered and denied with exactly that term. Even if it was just small things like slightly longer reload times on LMGs and MGs, not even to talk about reload anims here. Everytime it was stated that its not "possible" because of "Engine limitations"... Then you are a free open-minded person (welche auch gerne mal über den Tellerrand schaut, gelle) and you see that your beloved Game is called a "Simulation", then you look at the games you just called this: And you see that despite such games are really "cheap" and not even comparable to the ArmA Series, its scale, etc., they somehow can do such "Simulation" aspects better... How is that possible? All i'm saying is that since we play a supposed "Simulation" (Package states: "Most Realistic Military Simulation"), we simply should have such features detailed and modeled into the Engine. In my opinion better spend development time in this area, than on making the engine just prettier and prettier every time. (Though of course it looks very good - i don't dare to say different since its true!) But again, feel free to drop me a PM and we can discuss that further and i see you are German too, so its even easier to communicate :-) Hey i am chilled... having a beer and cigarette on my free day just right now. :-) I really should change my write style ^^ Yes those old times on TG were pure fun, i think when ArmA3 and mods such as ACE and ACRE are out for it, we should do such uber-realistic missions again. Was pure (but often exhausting) fun to be pinned in front of your computer for 6 hours or so. Sometime not even fired a single shot. haha.

Yes and that above was my last "whine statement" - i get the impression that it won't change anyway, i didn't in almost 10 years, why should it change in 20? To much energy wasted in that from my side. Have more important things to do ;-) Thats why i said - good luck :-) OT: Besides that Scuba, a lot of the other "more critical" community members are either banned or completely fed-up with the series and abandoned it totally. Now you decide if thats a good sign or not. But you can write me anytime via PM if you like to discuss about that. Cheers.

Lol... again the "Engine Limitations".... How about getting rid of them once and for all? This is supposed to be a "SIMULATION" remember BIS? Not a kiddie-Corner-shooter (which often got such features - strange hah?)... Community is begging you about that since PRE-ARMA1!!! Release and you still can't do such things because of "engine limitations" ? Also this statement kind of kills any hope for a tank armor system like told by booster, realistic penetration and after-effects, whatever and so forth... Pretty sad in my eyes and ears. Though the game looks good... but didn't that ArmA2 already? Probably i really drive the wrong brand... Good Luck BIS.

But... wouldn't it do that in RL up to a certain extend? I mean now compared to no light at all.

Well Krazi, Physics alone... is a HUGE addition. This alone will solve (most likely) a ton of annoying engine oddities we know so far... And... well possibly more: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132956-Will-ARMA3-feature-realistic-tank-armor&p=2158632&viewfull=1#post2158632

Like i speculated earlier, it might be the case that Booster saw just various proof of concepts from BIS running on the latest RV engine, for their future products/games and they might NOT be in ArmA3. However, if those technologies exist, it might be well the case that we then see them/get them in a later Expansion/Engine-Update-DLC of ArmA3. Who knows.

The 4x4 driving probably didn't have "moon gravity" anymore, like we are used to it from previous RV engines of BIS. This alone, is worth buying a copy ^^ God i'm so sick of the ArmAs gravity so far...PhysX in ArmA3 most likely will solve that finally. However when i remember back, in some none-serious MP games, driving with an Abrams from a high mountain on Sahrani and doing crazy jumps over 100s of meters and lading soft like on a pillow at the end, was some fun too... hahahaha.

EXACTLY THIS! This is what need to be fixed at least... Every other "improvement" in the AI Field is pointless if the ArmA3 AI is continuing to act so weird like perfectly described here by -Coulum-.

Yes hopefully, so the initial argument that was spread here (PhysX is not Multicore comaptible and don't even use SSE, but 1980s x87 instruction sets) should be false.

The Question remains if ArmA3 will use the new PhysX3.0 SDK or not...

That depends totally on the explosives used. Nobody in military uses Dynamite in any weapons warheads... Thats why they also say in the Mythbusters Video, that with the explosives used before - ANFO - it was different. ;-)

Thats the reason :-) However there was a good improvement from ArmA1 to ArmA2 in that manner. Even Maruk, the BIS CEO once confirmed that in an Interview at a game show prior to ArmA2 release. In ArmA1 you could often take out a complete SLA Squad with your M16A2, especially in Urban combat... In ArmA2 this is not so easy possible